Federal Arbitration Act Supreme Court of the United States Arbitration

The Federal Arbitration Act is a United States federal statute enacted in 1925 that governs arbitration in contracts implicating interstate commerce. The Act applies in both federal and state courts. 
News & Analysis as of

U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review of California’s Iskanian Decision – California State and Federal Courts Remain Divided on PAGA...

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review California high court’s landmark decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, which held that arbitration agreements with mandatory class waivers are generally...more

No Waiver Of PAGA Representative Claims (Yet)

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in connection with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angleles, LLC. Had the Court heard the Iskanian case, it was expected to...more

California’s Inconsistent Treatment of Pre-Dispute Waivers in Arbitration Agreements Will Remain in Place

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant review in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, leaving in place a California Supreme Court holding that pre-dispute arbitration agreements cannot require...more

U.S. Supreme Court Tires (For Now) of Playing “Whack-a-Mole” With California Over Arbitration

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari filed in CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC v. Iskanian, a case in which the California Supreme Court held that waivers of employees’ right to bring...more

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Iskanian only hardens the federal-state divide over PAGA claims

The divide continues between California and federal law on whether an arbitration agreement can entirely waive an employee’s ability to seek classwide or multiparty representational relief. The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied...more

SCOTUS Allows California to Interpret Federal Arbitration Act As Excluding Private Attorney General Claims

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in the Iskanian case from the California Supreme Court. In doing so, SCOTUS allowed one of the most interesting Federal Arbitration Act interpretations in...more

The Beginning of the End for Class Action Litigation? Why Justice Scalia and the Current Supreme Court Are Good for Business

In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Supreme Court confirmed what it had only hinted at two years earlier in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion. In a holding authored by Justice Scalia, the Court made plain...more

2014: The Year of Arbitrator Authority

A lot of interesting arbitration law was made this year, on topics from validity to vacatur, but the banner issue was arbitrator authority.  SCOTUS announced that theme for the year with its BG Group decision in March and...more

Arbitration Agreements in Nursing Home Admission Agreements

In response to increasing runaway verdicts with large awards for punitive damages, many nursing homes are including arbitration clauses in their admission agreements. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Marmet Health Care...more

NLRB Refuses To Yield On Anti-Arbitration Ruling Despite Near-Unanimous Rejection By Courts

Friday was Halloween, an occasion when our thoughts turn to jack o’lanterns, ghosts, and zombies. We are particularly fascinated by zombies—the dead returned to life. But we’re not the only ones. In a decision early last...more

Arbitration vs Forum-Selection Clauses: Chicken & Egg Dilemma?

Last week the Fifth Circuit weighed in on how inartfully crafted arbitration and forum-selection clauses might trump one another. Together with recent decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuits – each with cert petitions...more

InterConnect FLASH! No. 40 - Supreme Court Declines Swift Review - But It Is Not The End Of The Story

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review the Swift worker misclassification case, which has been working its way through the courts for several years. That decision has brought up a lot of questions on the...more

California Supreme Court: Gentry is Gone. PAGA Lives On.

Compelled by U.S. Supreme Court precedent advancing arbitration as a method of dispute resolution, the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (No. S20432, June 23, 2014) held that its...more

California Supreme Court Upholds Employment Class Action Waivers, but Rejects Waivers of PAGA Claims

The California Supreme Court issued an important decision last week on the enforceability of employment class action waivers included in arbitration agreements. The result: private parties can contract for the waiver of the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Decide Whether Wrongful Death Suits are Subject to Arbitration

The United States Supreme Court was recently asked to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a state law rule that prohibits enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements in certain wrongful death...more

California Supreme Court Allows Arbitration Agreements With Class Waivers

On Monday, June 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation of Los Angeles, LLC that a state’s refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement that waives the right to class proceedings on public...more

California Supreme Court Authorizes Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements

On June 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court held that employees may expressly waive their ability to bring class actions when agreeing to arbitrate disputes with their employer. In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los...more

California Supreme Court Upholds Class Waivers In Employee Arbitration Agreements, But Not Waivers Of Representative Claims Under...

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court, in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (Case No. S204032), upheld a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement between an employee and his employer. The Supreme Court...more

California High Court Finds Class Action Waivers Enforceable; Waiver of PAGA Action is not Enforceable

Acknowledging the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), to be a game-changer, the California Supreme Court has held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a state's...more

Fourth Circuit Rejects Broad Reading of Arbitration Ban in Dodd-Frank

In a variation on a familiar refrain, the Fourth Circuit recently upheld the enforceability of another arbitration provision under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) in Santoro v. Accenture Federal Services, LLC. This time,...more

Another California Court Does Backflips To Thwart Arbitration And Elevate The Class-Action Device

The hostility of some California courts to arbitration—and their resistance to preemption under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)—has produced nearly three decades of U.S. Supreme Court reversals. The most recent is AT&T...more

Tenth Circuit Rejects State Law Challenge to FAA Primacy

In the aftermath of AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion and American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, consumer lawyers have frequently argued that arbitration agreements should be invalidated if features other than the...more

Fifth Circuit Permits Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed a victory to employers in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 12-60031, 2013 W.L. 6231617 (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013), reversing an Order of the National Labor...more

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision another Victory For Employers Seeking to Avoid Class Actions

Just last week Mintz Levin presented a webinar on how employers can use arbitration agreements as a tool to avoid exposure to wage and hour and other class actions. The thesis of the webinar was that recent Supreme Court and...more

The California Supreme Court Curtails Concepcion’s Protection of Arbitration Agreements

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court analyzed whether a court could refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement because the terms are “unconscionable,” meaning that one party did not have meaningful...more

119 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5